Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m guessing they randomly suggested Lucy Lawless because she’s a Kiwi so they figure the accent is a good enough match, which…no it’s not really. LOL
They both talk funny 😉
Alright, they share blue eyes, their facial structures are close enough for mother and daughter. Haven’t seen that kind of skeptical frown though Lucy is so capable of on Emilie’s face, so think the facial expressions are somewhat different.
But sorry, no. Call it lack of imagination but can’t see Lucy on it, and most certainly not as Belle’s mother. Unless maybe they allow Belle’s mother to be some pushy, selfish woman with some style. Lucy can play sweet but she’s not much of a sweetheart material. I can’t remember what they did in the movie, remember only vaguely that Belle’s father was more of a nice guy, but was there even a mother and the sisters? There are sister mentioned in the tale , who treat Belle like a servant, but don’t think there was much talk of a mother either.
Now if this show would finally decide to simply go more camp and take itself a lot less serious, then it could be fun, and Lucy could show her comedic side.
Care little about more story for Belle though, so whatever.
[adrotate group="5"]¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
So Emma is still eventually turning back to her evil ways. lol I get it, I struggled with grammar a lot in school, one can get dizzy with so many sentences.
Having the light and the dark run in his veins now Henry will be tempted by both – uhm, wait, wasn’t evil and good something made and not born? Okay, right, he still has a will to decide, which of the two powers in his blood he will let prevail. As if that wasn’t a choice everyone has to make frequently. Senseless poetic. Whatever.
But seriously. Do they have text editors there working or just some greenhorn interns? Maybe I could take that as fan written synopses, but these people are professionals, for crying out loud, Or they should be. This is an example of how not to write.
@WickedRegal – regular doesn’t automatically qualify as important character, and it has been shown with Meghan Ory that it doesn’t even mean you get an important or even good story line in a season. Not being a regular neither means, you’re not important to the story. There is no merit in hanging up on something that means so little. As a regular Sean would have to be available for the show, if they make good use of him or not doesn’t matter. It’s a nice, secure income. On the other hand it means other projects you’re interested in might have to take a back seat just because you have to be available. From an artist’s point of view regular is not always the best option of contract. Really, being regular does not necessarily translate to being well written character and important to the overall story.¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
We mostly are in agreement. I think in popular culture people can use the terms SM and TL interchangeably, but where I disagree is with Eddy’s entire definition of what a SM is. The one thing I would counter is that Eddy did not say he thinks a SM is when there is only one perfect match; what he actually said was:
Kitsis and Horowitz also clarified the difference between what a true love is versus what a soulmate is on the show. “True love is when you truly love somebody,” Kitsis said. “Soulmate is the idea that there’s only one person for you.”
You’re right, that is what Eddy said. But Adam said:
Adam: And I think with both, true love and soulmates, are things which are in flux and you can work and you can confine them and there is always hope for finding what you think is your true love or soulmate.
And Eddy said, it’s the idea that there is only one person. Idea = content of the mind, belief, notion, thought.
What both said suggests to me more, that even in the Enchanted Forest there is no definite understanding shared by everyone without question, soul mate is not a fixed logic of the realms or so, but more something people believe in each in their own ways. As I said, weighing every word only with caution, because it was a panel, but they kept it vague. One can say, to try to keep fans happy (the more negative view), but as well one can say, to keep their writing options open (in a positive sense, they would be fools to get even deeper into the dead-end the pixie dust already has put things into). It wasn’t well said and hasn’t made fans happy (so if that was their intention, they failed) though.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
I also have to note & point out (as I’m not sure it has been yet), that they said SM = when “someone thinks there is only one person for them”. Not that “There is actually only one person for someone”.
So I guess in that respect, what they are saying is TLs & SMs aren’t really “different” as such, it’s that people view them differently? …. Ok I think I’m going to confuse myself if I continue on from here… this isnt something I should be writing at 2:50am while sick lol, so hopefully it makes sense if I leave it here
Get better! (I like to do the same when sick, awake in the night, writing and posting for example in forums, but then am sleeping away the day).
You make sense to me. I was about to point it out earlier, but it has been said on panel, not a written in an essay, so should be cautious to weigh their every word. On the other hand why should it be any different for the characters than it is for us, we have different views and interpretations and so have the characters. As well remember the different realities of fiction, film, mentioned it somewhere on here before, quite sure, reality of the characters, of the narrator, of the writers (those don’t have to be one and the same with any of the first mentioned, they can be very different), of the production, of the audience, diegitic and non-diegetic.
Sometimes wonder if the writers, and especially if A&E have begun to understand, that their geeky fun is touching rather profound issues, questions of life, of society. I don’t want OUaT to be turned into any moral message show, goodness no, but I miss with the writers a sensitivity how deep some things go, or can go, and are taken by some in the audience. It certainly doesn’t help that A&E come across so smug in interviews and on panels, and Adam on Twitter. They regularly talk themselves into trouble.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
I agree with you, Slurpeez, the term soul mate is not strictly romantic nor is there a good reason, why there should be only one right person, soulmate, true love.
But common ideas of romantic love might have a lot to do with the concept of soul mate as it was developed since (at least) the Greek philosophers. In Plato’s Symposium you find the story, myth told, that it comes from humans having been split into two (!) halves, and since we humans are longing and looking for our other half. Seeing this, we might try to connect with others the same way, might come even close, but there is only one person in the world who fully completes us, one soul mate. A love kinda made in the heavens, by the Greek gods. The one person right for us and existing somewhere on this planet is not an invention of Disney, though very much fostered by Disney and much of our modern pop culture as a part of romance, the one true love.
The Greeks had a bit of a different understanding of marriage, it had little to do with our modern ideas of romance and not much to do with love even, it was an alliance of convenience. Not even Christians have seen marriage as a matter of romance. Romance is something that was described in literary (romances) and poetry (Minnesang) of High Middle Ages, later Shakespeare should be named as one with some influence on the idea of romantic (and less romantic) love, and then there was romanticism – but the connection of romance and marriage is more of a modern idea. Courtly love was something happening outside marriage. It was praised and celebrated, desire described, but it was mostly not decent to consummate it (see Lancelot). True love was a love so great that one was ready to sacrifice lesser needs and desires for it.
Coming from the Greek as well and furthered by Christian philosophers true love as well was the love leaving physicality, transcending human earthbound existence and going beyond, finding a beauty of the divine. No romance though.
In the past decades our idea of a soul mate got new aspects from interpretations of alleged nature religions, karmic and reincarnation believes, occult and cult groups, the influence of the “age of Aquarius” or so.
Some use soul mate more in a non-romantic and platonic sense of kindred spirit or soul, others more in the sense of romantic love. The confusion is all over the place and cultures.
Consider this: If you’re always looking out for that one person who totally completes you, then chances are, you won’t be fully satisfied with the person right in front of you.
I like that view. In the sense, that a lot of people are so fixed on looking for the perfect match, as if it is something they can pick like an apple from a tree. Guess what, you first have to seed, then grow the tree, and then you might be able to pick a great, tasty fruit.
We tend to see love more as a problem of being loved than of our own capacity to give love. As well often a crush or infatuation is mistaken as love. And somehow we wrongly think, that love is something we just know how to do and not something we have to learn and exercise. This fallacy was unfortunately supported by how fairy tales were often read and retold the past century, and much of that was Disney.
And then they live happily ever after – well that is when the really tough part begins. Falling in love is easy, keeping it up for the rest of one’s life is another matter.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Because if there is only ONE of something in the entire universe, that makes it more rare, precious, valuable and irreplaceable. Therefore, one’s singular soulmate (apparently) ranks above one’s replaceable true love.
In my world nothing has to be rare to be precious and valuable. An 8-legged cockroach might be a very rare occurrence (a mutation) but I am very sure we never would find it more valuable because of that (though might bring a lot of money). Water I find highly valuable regardless (although as drinkable water it is becoming rare, such costing more and more money and is reason for wars; as well in form of a Tsunami the sudden huge amount is something to nevertheless run away from). Especially love should be something we give in full, excessively, there should be an abundance of love and not a shortage. That is honestly something I don’t understand with the concept of one true love. Does that mean that we humans are mostly not able to give true love or have no good reason to do so, but what does true love has to do with reason? Is true love some kind of rare stardust or so, which only a few can receive, or is it something we can create in us and have to nurture ourselves? Is it something we have or something we build? If we are so fixed on the idea, that there can be only one true love, aren’t we the ones limiting love and thus fulfilling our own prophecy?
I do get, why people assume, there was a hierarchy implied, based on their believes, but it was not what I heard, it was not said. It’s interpretation. The question was, what is the difference between true love and soulmate, it was not, is one better than the other.
I have a lot more headaches with OUaT’s world building concerning their use of magic than I have with the writers probably changing handle/views on true love concept. And did they? Because who is talking, the characters on the show for one, giving their views, ideas, opinion, but we shouldn’t confuse that with the writer’s views, ideas, opinion given in interviews. And views can change, we learn.
Just have heard an hour long live radio broadcast about polyamory, coincidence. One thing I noticed, that on the radio show there was a blurred understanding of love and just sex, like a man making plans for his wife to fulfill some of her sex dreams including other partners for a night – I would never call that polyamory though. On the other hand though wouldn’t say either, that a one-nighter never could as well involve feelings of love.
I find it very interesting to follow these discussions about true love and soulmate around the web in the OUaT fandom. I have struggled a while in my life to find any working definition of love for me, and I still have many questions when it comes to feelings for particular people in my life, not to mention the ongoing challenge to figure out, what that means, what I want a relationship to be, what it can be, the question what the other wants it to be.
I don’t feel much bothered by the question of true love or soulmate on the show nor what A&E have said. The love I feel is unique for each person, I never feel the same for anyone. That never makes any relations to a person per se more valuable than to another. The lines between romance, bff/ bromance, friendship and family are for me rather fluid, there is no general line for me, it is something I have to define with each and everyone individually, and it is something that can change over time. I have been in romantic love and relations of different extend and intensity with people of different gender (maybe that in theory I could be attracted to pretty much everyone makes a huge difference). I don’t believe in the concept of just one true romantic love in a lifetime, and not even in the idea of just one true romantic love at a time, I think there are many variations possible. It is society, which forms preferred views and behaviors and with that defines preferred expressions of love and preferred forms of it. One true love is an idea not a law of physics, and to me as a fundamental idea a rather limiting one. I am not saying, that happiness can only be found in open relationships, but neither would I ever agree, that happiness can only be found with loving only one person (and building a family with that person) – I think both is possible, and it depends on what each of us makes of it and is looking for. Some find one love in their life and that is their happiness, others fall in love with a number of people and their happiness was and is with each of them. Happiness is not a lasting end-product but something transient as a moment and a creation happening all over our lives (if we’re lucky).
True love is an activity, something we do, feel, soulmate is a label for a person. It’s in that sense not interchangeable but it is part of the same concept. The idea of love being more than mere lust and desire or biological need and urge to procreate. If you look into the history of the terms you will find Plato’s Symposium, and for soulmate the myth of the gods having split up humans into two halves, so now two people. But as well, in other believes, philosophies, cultures one can find it more in the sense of kindred spirits, so not limited to one other person, the notion of a closeness based on being like-minded, alike, or as well, being the complement to our selves. While soulmate is as much seen in connection of non-romantic relations, true love has become quite exclusively connected in our modern minds with romance, something maybe slowly changing now, crossing paths again with soulmate.
What I have so far and now again heard from the writers and seen on the show is: there is not only one true love in life (still debatable, depending on how you see some relationships), though maybe there is only one soulmate (what very much would be what the Greek myths is saying). One doesn’t exclude the other, but neither does one depend on the other. And feelings of people, and that includes love, are never carved in stone, unchangeable, but can change.
TLK is what makes to us, the audience a true love unmistakeably for the moment under specific circumstances visible, but that is it. It says nothing about the depth or quality of feelings between two people for all times. Neither does it tell, when it hasn’t happened (yet) between two people, if their relationship never ever can qualify as true love.
And just rewatched 3×03, the scene in the village taverne at lunch or tea time, when Tink told Regina, she can help people find love (!!), and Regina babbles something of soulmate (!!), Tink added, “the perfect match”, Regina’s “happy ending”- what Tink said sounded like the silly advertising of an online dating portal.
The pixie dust thing has become a bit of a story telling nightmare, they created themselves nearly a dead-end, although there are some explanations possible if OutlawQueen is failing.
I don’t know, I can’t tell, if A&E truly see a difference by now between true love and soulmate (the term was used for Snowings as well), want to make one by now, maybe they are that insecure and reacting to fans pushing for an answer, because I don’t think there was any need to make a difference. What I think is, they should do some training with a PR professional.
Edit: A show I think prompted much of the same questions was Xena – and in the fandom people as well gave some different answers.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Whatever A&E had said, people would discuss it now. If they’d said, there is no difference, people would have objections , they now have, because they (mis-) understand the answer given as one qualifying one (soulmate) as higher, better than the other (true love), though nothing like that was said. Why do many assume, that what A&E said, is a judgment about the quality of one or the other, that soulmate is the better, higher concept? I mean, I have an idea why many jump to that conclusion, because there is a widespread idea of love being only true for one person ever in life, but A&E didn’t say that one expression or occurrence or form of love (soulmate) is better or more sincere or important or superior or whatever than the other (true love). Why do many want to create or expect a hierarchy of love?
It would be telling, if A&E had been indeed unprepared for that question, because it is not the first time the question was raised, and their PR people or assistance are doing a heck of a bad job if they missed it had been discussed more again recently on the web (if so, fire those folks, I’m free to hire)., but I don’t think that they were unprepared. They probably have discussed the question in the writersroom, but there is no ultimate answer to it, it’s work in progress. It is part of the show to reflect on such questions like what is love, how does it show, what does it mean, where does it take us. It is part of the show to explore different ideas, views, options, and not to give us some ready-made meal to gulp down unchewed (frozen dinner, also known as TV dinner, funny). We read into the show based on our own views and experiences, and it is not always the task of the writers, to give answers to all our questions. Some want it black and white, clear cut, definite, cast in stone, but fiction is IMO reflection and not definition. Furthermore: Why can’t it be accepted, that there could be a variety of form and intensity and expression of love, but none is less valuable than the other (if insisting on making a difference between soulmate and true love)? And relationships are in flux, some more, some less.
Love is definitely indefinite as concept, there are a number of ideas, views, believes. If you like you can read the classical text discussing love, Plato’s Symposium. Much of the concepts of love we’re talking here about, true love, soulmate, platonic love and more, go back to that text. Here an English version of it: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html
Henry: In the same place? Don’t you see what this means? The curse is keeping them apart with the coma. Now they’re stuck without each other. We have to tell Miss Blanchard we found her Prince Charming.
Emma: Okay, kid. Telling someone their soulmate is in a coma is probably not helpful. Not having a happy ending is painful enough, but giving someone unrealistic hope is far worse.
Henry: But what if I’m right? We know who they are. Now they have to know.
(from Episode 1×03 Snow Falls)
The term soulmate was used before on the show, for Snow and Charming. Don’t remember any fastidious discussion back then. But alright, that was in the infant days of the fandom. And Emma might not have had a good idea, what she was talking about anyway, being a non-believer at that point. (I’m sure people will be able to come up with ideas, why this was something meant different and nothing comparable to Regina and Robin).
Why is there a need to define soulmate and differentiate it from true love, coming up with first Cora and Rumple and now Regina and Robin?
My guess: Rumple and Regina are by many of the fandom/audience perceived as bad guys, and Cora is probably seen as such by all. The Evil Queen is an icon of evil in the DisneyVerse, Rumplestiltskin is the evil imp of the fairy tales, and Cora had been the big bad of season 2 and beyond. Even though this show tries to give a more nuanced view on the bad guys, and it seems at least that one or two get a chance of redemption (not discussing here, if that makes sense or is written well), and even if accepting that things in (this fictional) life are more grey than simple black and white, to many people Rumple and Regina still are more on the dark side of things. Putting one of the iconic good couples standing for the idea of One True Love on the same level as the love the Evil Queen might find is an affront to our ideas of love, against our ethics. The Evil Queen, Regina, might be not pure evil anymore, might have a tragic story, might change and be redeemed at some point, but it feels still wrong that she ever could have the same love the good guys have. And that goes even more for Cora, she is evil, so she can’t feel true love, and not even anything close to it, Cora and Rumple where evil kindred spirits maybe but can’t be more.
For love is the good, the noble, be it the love to a child, a parent, a friend, a lover. The other thing, sometimes though confused with love, is just desire and lust. The evil guys might feel desire and lust, they want to possess, but love is not that, love is respect and sacrifice. At least that is a common idea.
It’s not about soulmate or true love, it is about the question, if the evil, the bad guys, even if somewhat redeemed, deserve love or are able to give love. And it is about if there is just one romantic love in a lifetime or if there is more possible.
The first time it came up it was about Rumple and Cora in comparison to RumBelle – and people didn’t want to buy into Cora and Rumple being true love of any kind, it was unimaginable, outrageous, it just couldn’t be. In an interview Eddy used the word soulmate, so not true love like RumBelle is thought to be, and while some embraced that as a compromise, as them being close, understanding each other, mates in spirit, evil Cora drawn to evil Dark One, but not true love, for others there was pretty much no difference between soulmate and true love, and to most it was still not acceptable. Adam backpaddled later, and said, they had not even been soulmates, they just used the term “shorthand” in interview (whatever, get some PR training, guys)
But then the pixie dust happened, and Tinkerbelle spoke of soulmate and not true love for Regina. People read soulmate as something different than true love, to get their heads around, how Daniel could have been true love (but was he?) and how now Regina could have another true love, because many believe, that there can be only one true love in a lifetime. So they needed a way to make both possible, that Regina had still a good reason to have gone as mad as she did, she lost her true love Daniel, but might nevertheless eventually find some sort of a happy ending with another guy, Robin, her soulmate. One true love, the other soulmate, could work.
Or not, because people still struggle with the definition of soulmate and true love. Keeping lust and love apart is (seemingly) easier, here it is about the subtle but important nuances of (noble) love.
It is interesting though, that many seem to accept RumBelle as true love without any kind of doubt. I know, it has been shown, that their kiss nearly broke the curse of the Dark One, so not much to discuss there, is it. But why could Rumple prevent it from having full effect? And is Rumple just some poor, misunderstood, cursed soul or is he evil or at least doing evil? Why should he deserve to experience true love? Is it because we associate Rumple with the Beast, and the love of Beauty and Beast is epic and in it’s disneyfied version another iconic true love couple? I know I am not alone with having a problem with Rumbelle as true love couple. It even gives me the creeps to read young women, girls write about it in praise. I can’t neither overlook the early written versions of the tale behind the Beauty and the Beast trope, nothing romantic in it, nor that in this show I see a couple with an unhealthy power imbalance and blind, undeserved trust. But if I look into commentaries on other sides, including here, on Twitter, Facebook, RumBelle is a fan favorite true love couple.
What is the difference to OutlawQueen, Regina and Robin, besides an age difference, and the woman being the one with the power? Aside that we got to see true love’s kiss working with RumBelle and not with OutlawQueen so far (though nothing says it wouldn’t work).
And maybe Daniel was no true love, as probably weren’t Milah or Cora to Rumple.
And Snowing? True love’s kiss, true love’s actions (David giving his heart, Snow sharing it) – they are the exceptional couple, true love, soulmate, karmic love… Oh, haven’t had that term on the show yet. That’s it, we could call it karmic love, Snowing, these two are meant to be with each other no matter in what form of existence, lasting over all karmic life cycles they might have lived and will live, while OutlawQueen are just soulmates in this lifetime.
If it is any comfort, the Greek philosophers had no unified, ultimate answer to the question of love either 😉 (And Plato was a better “troll” than A&E)
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Not sure what would be easier on the budget or look better. Well, it might be for just 5 lines or so.
Aside that I fancy John Rhys-Davies (Gargoyles can celebrate 20th anniversary this year! And not to forget on the list, he played Da Vinci on Voyager – no geek adventure show is complete without him), just had the thought, it could as well have been funny to cast William Shatner as voice of a troll. Just saying.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Esposito not as bad guy nor mislead guy. Joins an interesting cast. Had no idea that Johansson is cast as Kaa, nice. As kid I wanted Kaa as friend (I was that weird).
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
And now that Emma has brought back Robin Hood’s wife, Marian, and possibly sparked the end of Regina’s relationship with him, will she return to her old, evil ways and do everything in her power to get even?
She – who? Emma? This made me laugh. So Emma is returning to her old evil ways. 😉 The fine art of writing.
(And now that Emma has done this, and possibly done that, will she…)
Yes, I know, they likely are meaning Regina. Or maybe not.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
